Best Horror Flick in Years!

Rating: Null/10 (30 June 2003)

I have read mostly complaints about this movie on IMDb. The complaints, although there is a thread of substance to them, are mostly undeserved. I am a fan of horror movies, suspense movies, and thriller movies, and I loved this one.
****Possible spoilers ahead*****
First of all, people say that this movie is unoriginal or a rip-off. Well let's face it, any new "zombie" movie has to be a rip-off, if you want to use that argument. There have been so many movies about flesh-eating mindless corpses, it'll make your head spin. But then "Signs" is a rip-off of every alien invasion movie, "Scream" must be a rip-off of every slasher movie, "The Ring" is about a video which causes a bunch of weird stuff to happen (see "Videodrome", a lower budget but in some ways better movie) the source of which is the ghost of a young girl who was killed and the body hidden (see "Stir of Echoes"). So, "The Ring" must be a rip-off, except that it's a remake of "Ringu". Could someone argue that because it's a remake, it's the ultimate rip-off? Maybe "Stir of Echoes" really is a rip-off of "Ringu" which actually came first. Let me ask, can a movie be made as a homage to earlier films? Can some ideas be recycled, if there is a fresh approach or some new ideas incorporated? If we ask Danny Boyle and Alex Garland (the director and script writer of 28 days later), perhaps they would tell us that 28 days later is the latest installment in the flesh-eating zombie genre. Does it recycle some ideas from "Night of the Living Dead" or "Dawn of the Dead". Of course it does. Does it bring a fresh approach, a daring style of directing, and some entertaining twists on a classic genre. You bet!
Secondly, a lot of people complain about how the movie appeared. Some people complained of poor lighting, a washed-out grainy look, and rapid, blurry cuts that were described as "poor editing". Can these people be horror fans? How can they not understand that this was done PURPOSELY, purely for effect?!? If I watch a horror film where everything is brightly lit (such as "Alien:Resurrection") or crystal clear (like "Mimic") the effect is lost. If you use lingering shots and show too much of what is happening, the audience sees too much. Fear and tension are created (I think Hitchcock said this) by what you don't see.
Finally, some complain about the movie having holes and not fully explaining everything. If you want horror to explain everything watch reruns of Scooby-Doo. See above. If the audience sees (or knows) too much, some of the element of mystery, fear of the unknown, and plot tension goes bye-bye! I have to admit there are a few coincidences (the nick of time tire change) and unlikely events (surviving 28 days on a hospital bed in coma without doctor's care), but c'mon this is a movie. I've seen a lot of things that are far less believable in other movies. Maybe a doctor was there until day 26, and he left to look for food. Again a movie can't and shouldn't explain everything. If one's imagination can create a possible explanation, then it's not really a plot hole. It's just something unknown and open to debate.
Bottom Line: Great movie! 9/10. Danny Boyle has lived up my expectation, which is high considering that I thought "Shallow Grave" was brilliant.